Yasiin Bey (aka Mos Def) force-fed under standard Guantánamo Bay procedure – Video

[Captain James Mission]

That's what I was trying to say. It don't have to be "real" information you get out of a tortured. and sheik mohammed confessed the murder earlier without torturing.

 

torture is just a pretty fucked unhuman method and that coming from "the land of the free" is even more fucked up. what next? bamboo under the fingernails?

 

and whats the whole point of guantanamo anyway. it just like one of the biggest provocation to the whole islamic world.

it' s like:

 

look

fuck you

cause we can

and nobody isn't going to do anything about it

[eugene]

Err, of course I agree the research is limited; the empirical evidence is still out there and that's where conclusions can be drawn. "Limited" is not at all what you said a post ago (and please keep reading those articles if you can find free ones -- the few I came across make exactly the point I'm making here: it is ineffective as a form of interrogation), eugene, and I hope it's clear that I'm trying to make you realize how stifling this honed-in sort of conversing on insignificant details really is to a conversation. Fucking pedantic arguments on watmm, I swear. No one has even addressed the main point I wanted to make a few posts ago. I repeated it twice already, so I'll just go for the day now. :P

 

the general idea that "research is limited" should lead to the understanding (that you're trying to avoid) that efficacy of torture is inconclusive in general , it overshadows what you're trying to do, which is to overstate the importance of some very particular and narrow research. i don't know what you deem as the main point of your post, i'm merely debating a particular statement of yours ("we apparently know as a scientific fact that torture doesn't work effectively to gain valuable intelligence"), against which you yourself brought evidence.

as for the proof of inconclusiveness here's a (short) article that gives a few examples of torture working and discusses the topic of inconclusiveness in general: http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/torturecardozo.pdf

[joshuatxuk]

That's what I was trying to say. It don't have to be "real" information you get out of a tortured. and sheik mohammed confessed the murder earlier without torturing.

 

torture is just a pretty fucked unhuman method and that coming from "the land of the free" is even more fucked up. what next? bamboo under the fingernails?

 

and whats the whole point of guantanamo anyway. it just like one of the biggest provocation to the whole islamic world.

it' s like:

 

look

fuck you

cause we can

and nobody isn't going to do anything about it

 

Oh ok, sorry I didn't read your earlier posts carefully enough.

 

The other problem with Gitmo is that, well, no one knows how to close it without revealing what a costly and needless operation it is. That's why congress refuses to move on it and Obama likewise doesn't push the issue. Damn it and it's loophole gray area existence.

[luke viia]

 

Err, of course I agree the research is limited; the empirical evidence is still out there and that's where conclusions can be drawn. "Limited" is not at all what you said a post ago (and please keep reading those articles if you can find free ones -- the few I came across make exactly the point I'm making here: it is ineffective as a form of interrogation), eugene, and I hope it's clear that I'm trying to make you realize how stifling this honed-in sort of conversing on insignificant details really is to a conversation. Fucking pedantic arguments on watmm, I swear. No one has even addressed the main point I wanted to make a few posts ago. I repeated it twice already, so I'll just go for the day now. :P

 

the general idea that "research is limited" should lead to the understanding (that you're trying to avoid) that efficacy of torture is inconclusive in general , it overshadows what you're trying to do, which is to overstate the importance of some very particular and narrow research. i don't know what you deem as the main point of your post, i'm merely debating a particular statement of yours ("we apparently know as a scientific fact that torture doesn't work effectively to gain valuable intelligence"), against which you yourself brought evidence.

as for the proof of inconclusiveness here's a (short) article that gives a few examples of torture working and discusses the topic of inconclusiveness in general: http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/torturecardozo.pdf

 

 

Well, I'm actually just using the language of the speakers in the video I posted, which I'm guessing you aren't going to watch, lol. You'll notice I said "apparently," and you'll also notice you only quoted about 1/3rd of my sentence. The rest was a clarification: torture often works quite well with low-level information holders; the claim the lecturer(s) made was that when dealing with high-level detainees, the historical record suggests that soft interrogation works much better (as opposed to "advanced" interrogation techniques, that is, torture).

 

The main point of my post was the only thing I initially repeated. Thanks for reading my posts thoughtfully, lol.

 

I'd like to believe that in a world where the efficacy of torture is inconclusive, world leaders would respond by not using torture world-wide, simply believing it is effective. When something is harmful and you don't know if it even works, doing it on a mass scale seems pretty irresponsible.

 

Anyways, the main point I was on about is that the images of American torture of detainees (from Abu Ghraid and Guantanamo Bay) are the number one and number two insurgent recruitment tools in Iraq. That just blows my mind. The military I help pay for is the number one and two cause of terrorist recruitment in the area we are occupying, and the harsh techniques responsible for the recruitment are not even proven to be effective (I think that phrasing is a little better?). All the while, our own soldiers are coming home psychologically traumatized, facing rage, depression, committing suicide, abusing drugs, etc., because they were not properly trained as interrogators (watch the video for a lot of details about this) but were hastily thrown into a position of insane moral duty and asked to watch over and interrogate the same people they captured on the field.

 

Hope that makes my concern clear, and please don't bait me into any more tiny details over wording. <3 I'm just a concerned guy who wants to share his opinion, and yes, I concede that the language used in the video and repeated by me that it is a 'scientific fact' that torture doesn't work is probably over the top. I'll have to read that dude's book to speak more intelligently about what he meant.

[eugene]

it doesn't have to be 100% effective all of the time, maybe it works only 5% of the time and that could be enough in some circumstances, we're not talking new drug testing here overall.

regarding the point you find mind-blowing, is it really something that new for you that opposing sides will exploit such info as propaganda ? also, it's unlikely that by "main sources for recruitment" he means main cause for recruitment, probably it's just something that is used widely, it's really impossible to know what is the main cause in things like that.

[luke viia]

I'll just add these to make my point clear.

 

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

 

 

With many policy or political issues, there are ambiguities that lead to the

necessity of compromise. This is not the case with the policy of torture. Based on

the available facts and research findings, it is clear that the use of torture-based

interrogations should end. Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means

of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence.

Torture has severe, long-term negative consequences for survivors, perpetrators,

and communities. More broadly, the use of torture has far-reaching consequences:

it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility toward our troops,

provides a rationale for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the United

States in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and

undermines our credibility when we argue for international human rights or any

moral imperative. Any purported benefits of torture must be weighed against these

substantial proven costs.

 

(conclusion)

 

 

From The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate

 

and this.

 

 

While government officials have argued that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are necessary to protect American citizens, the effectiveness of such techniques has been debated. According to a recent study, when torture is used to elicit information, it is likely to be unexpectedly harsh yet ineffective. This study was published in a new article in Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) published by SAGE on behalf of the Western Political Science Association.

[...]

Schiemann stated that while many believe that interrogational torture cannot be justified under any circumstances, those who do advocate for it claim that at times it is the only way gain critical information. He found, however, that under realistic circumstances interrogational torture is far more likely to produce ambiguous and false, rather than clear and reliable, information.

From ScienceDaily

 

 

To be totally honest, I just deeply disagree with your stance on this. You just said you think terrorists are "exploiting" the images of their own people being tortured - often wrongfully - as propaganda. I think they're doing what any rational person would do - see it as a gross moral injustice and be driven to defend their communities.

 

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this ITT, and I'm not out to convince you. I'll duck out and do something productive I guess, lol. Later dude.

[Danny O Flannagin]

I really want to like Obama but more and more i'm becoming cynical toward our nation's government in general.

 

On a side note: Why did Mos Def change his name?

[SR4]

I really want to like Obama but more and more i'm becoming cynical toward our nation's government in general.

 

 

 

It's understandable. I mean, I think deep down a lot of people wanted to like Obama. And many still do. Shit, I didn't vote for the man but there was still part of me that thought maybe he'd prove me wrong and clean up the shit that Bush left. But the guy's administration is a continuation, expansion and acceleration of everything I truly hated about previous administrations. I think a lot of Americans actually feel similar, but they are unwilling to give up Obama and the Democratic Party for fears of being left out in the cold.

 

So ultimately, when we get to issues as delicate as this, wanting to like someone (IMHO) should be the first major sign that you want nothing to do with them.

[Danny O Flannagin]

 

I really want to like Obama but more and more i'm becoming cynical toward our nation's government in general.

 

 

 

It's understandable. I mean, I think deep down a lot of people wanted to like Obama. And many still do. Shit, I didn't vote for the man but there was still part of me that thought maybe he'd prove me wrong and clean up the shit that Bush left. But the guy's administration is a continuation, expansion and acceleration of everything I truly hated about previous administrations. I think a lot of Americans actually feel similar, but they are unwilling to give up Obama and the Democratic Party for fears of being left out in the cold.

 

So ultimately, when we get to issues as delicate as this, wanting to like someone (IMHO) should be the first major sign that you want nothing to do with them.

 

Did you vote for Mitt then or just no vote in general? I actually voted for Obama because i figured if he had a second term he wouldn't be afraid to do some radical things like legalizing marijuana.

[SR4]

I voted for one of the third parties (and no, I did not vote Libertarian, and no, I did not write in Ron Paul).

 

I think a lot of my friends felt the same way when they voted Danny (the 2nd term is when all the "real shit" is gonna get done).

[joshuatxuk]

I voted for Obama too. I don't exactly regret it, but next time I'll go with a third party candidate for president. I tell people they have every right to be cynical and apathetic to presidential politics, but they should vote in state and local elections. It's infuriating when so few do and yet so many are affected by it.

[SR4]

I voted for Obama too. I don't exactly regret it, but next time I'll go with a third party candidate for president. I tell people they have every right to be cynical and apathetic to presidential politics, but they should vote in state and local elections. It's infuriating when so few do and yet so many are affected by it.

 

this.

 

real long-term change is from the bottom-up.

[Danny O Flannagin]

I voted for one of the third parties (and no, I did not vote Libertarian, and no, I did not write in Ron Paul).

 

I think a lot of my friends felt the same way when they voted Danny (the 2nd term is when all the "real shit" is gonna get done).

I think thats noble to vote for a third party but (espeically in American politics) there isn't much of a chance in politics unless you have a bunch of fucking money. I probably would've voted for a woman running for the Green Party (her name escapes me) but i knew it was down to Mitt and Barack so just had to go with the lesser of two evils

[SR4]

 

I voted for one of the third parties (and no, I did not vote Libertarian, and no, I did not write in Ron Paul).

 

I think a lot of my friends felt the same way when they voted Danny (the 2nd term is when all the "real shit" is gonna get done).

I think thats noble to vote for a third party but (espeically in American politics) there isn't much of a chance in politics unless you have a bunch of fucking money. I probably would've voted for a woman running for the Green Party (her name escapes me) but i knew it was down to Mitt and Barack so just had to go with the lesser of two evils

 

 

money is earned via grass roots means.

 

otherwise we might as well start admitting we live in an oligarchy and stop voting altogether. the battle is always supposed to be uphill.

[lumpenprol]

you might want to see who the next candidates are before saying who you're going to vote for, jus' sayin'.

 

I voted Obama. Like you guys, I was hoping he'd be willing to take bolder stances during his second term.

 

I don't think of him as an abject failure yet - taken as a whole he's still better than bush, unequivocally. If only because he didn't start any new wars, and will probably be appointing some much needed balance to the SC.

 

But his extension and expansion of neocon policies is sad to see.

 

I'm guessing it's not that the NSA are holding his balls in a vice, but simply that a bunch of security experts tell him "we need to do X, Y, and Z to protect nat'l security", and Obama not having a lot backbone, goes "hm, yeah, that sounds reasonable, and I don't want to offend paranoid, terrified, and gun-totin' Americans"

 

Still the rise of the global police state is getting quite interesting. I hope there is a ton of behind-the-scenes political fallout from the NSA spying debacle, from our "friends and allies".

[MisterE]

 

I really want to like Obama but more and more i'm becoming cynical toward our nation's government in general.

 

 

 

It's understandable. I mean, I think deep down a lot of people wanted to like Obama. And many still do. Shit, I didn't vote for the man but there was still part of me that thought maybe he'd prove me wrong and clean up the shit that Bush left. But the guy's administration is a continuation, expansion and acceleration of everything I truly hated about previous administrations. I think a lot of Americans actually feel similar, but they are unwilling to give up Obama and the Democratic Party for fears of being left out in the cold.

 

So ultimately, when we get to issues as delicate as this, wanting to like someone (IMHO) should be the first major sign that you want nothing to do with them.

 

shit yeah it's understandable. there were commercials and shit on tv 24/7 saying 'hope and change'. if i had commercials on tv saying i was going to save the world 24hrs a day, a lot of idiots would think i was god too. not to mention that the guy had no vetting by a media who wanted to help install him so they could look progressive. tv decides our elections. and there's also that whole thing about you being racist if you didn't like him. the guy was sold as the second coming of jesus christ himself. ever notice how many of the pictures you would see of him were in some solemn pose, with his head ever so slightly tilted upward as if he were in deep contemplation, just athinkin' on how to solve all of the worlds problems? he might as well have been l ron hubbard, the way his supporters (followers) acted. i remember people around me fawning over him in 08 during the campaign. hearing about everything he was going to fix with his magic wand. i bet charles manson's 'family' didn't sound too different to some of the shit i remember hearing, when they talked about him.

 

i mean what credentials did he have that anyone, i mean, ANYONE with half a brain could look at and point to as proof that he was equipped to clean anything up or take us into some utopian paradise, end all wars, restore eroded liberties, live up to the nobel prize he was given for global nuclear disarmament (which if the nobel prize foundation wasn't already a complete sham of a joke i would say that alone should cause them to be considered such), fix the economy, bring racial harmony (HA, fucking HA), etc etc etc etc etc? there isn't anything. he was a senator for a while. he didn't even vote a lot of the time. OH that's right. he was a 'community organizer'. i remember hearing that about 50,000 times in 08, since the media had nothing else of his background to talk about while the tingles ran up their leg.

 

a two word campaign and a cultish need that a % of the pop has, to believe in a magic superman who can wave a wand and fix all their problems and take care of them and tuck them in at night got him elected. that, his lame duck opponents in the elections, and peoples' pathetic media brainwash induced need to prove they aren't racist.

[Guest Iain C]

I really want to like Obama but more and more i'm becoming cynical toward our nation's government in general.

 

On a side note: Why did Mos Def change his name?

 

It's pretty normal for people to take an Arabic name when they convert to Islam. Look at Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens). He's been a Muslim since he was 19 so it's likely he took the name then, and he's only recently chosen to retire his stage name.

[eugene]

I'll just add these to make my point clear.

 

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

 

 

With many policy or political issues, there are ambiguities that lead to the

necessity of compromise. This is not the case with the policy of torture. Based on

the available facts and research findings, it is clear that the use of torture-based

interrogations should end. Torture-based interrogations are ineffective as a means

of extracting reliable information and are likely to produce faulty intelligence.

Torture has severe, long-term negative consequences for survivors, perpetrators,

and communities. More broadly, the use of torture has far-reaching consequences:

it damages the reputation of the United States, creates hostility toward our troops,

provides a rationale for cruelty against U.S. soldiers and citizens, places the United

States in the company of some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, and

undermines our credibility when we argue for international human rights or any

moral imperative. Any purported benefits of torture must be weighed against these

substantial proven costs.

 

(conclusion)

 

 

From The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate

 

and this.

 

 

While government officials have argued that "enhanced interrogation techniques" are necessary to protect American citizens, the effectiveness of such techniques has been debated. According to a recent study, when torture is used to elicit information, it is likely to be unexpectedly harsh yet ineffective. This study was published in a new article in Political Research Quarterly (PRQ) published by SAGE on behalf of the Western Political Science Association.

 

[...]

 

Schiemann stated that while many believe that interrogational torture cannot be justified under any circumstances, those who do advocate for it claim that at times it is the only way gain critical information. He found, however, that under realistic circumstances interrogational torture is far more likely to produce ambiguous and false, rather than clear and reliable, information.

From ScienceDaily

 

 

To be totally honest, I just deeply disagree with your stance on this. You just said you think terrorists are "exploiting" the images of their own people being tortured - often wrongfully - as propaganda. I think they're doing what any rational person would do - see it as a gross moral injustice and be driven to defend their communities.

 

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this ITT, and I'm not out to convince you. I'll duck out and do something productive I guess, lol. Later dude.

well it can be righteous or not but it is an exploitation of images for particular cause, they could have gone to ICJ or something with those images but they use them as a recruitment tool, apparently.

regarding the articles, the first one doesn't really deal with efficacy seriously, it just drops a few widely known points without delving into plausible circumstances and the abilities of the agencies responsible for interrogations. the second one is very abstract and theoretical and relies on an overly rationalistic model, it also doesn't take the possibilities of the intelligence agencies to process various kinds of information, heck , even in the zero dark thirty it is portrayed in a more realistic way. the researcher simply isolates torture from other branches of intelligence.

the idea of course is not to convince you that torture is fine, but as is often in my case, to convince you that its efficacy or lack of is in question. it is understandable that your moral stance will pull you to particular kind of researches and conclusions, but you really have to try suppress that noise in order to reach something close to facts.

[Alcofribas]

eugene you never fail to bring in the lols. they could have brought the pictures to the icj??? OMLOL that's so beautiful.

[eugene]

you never fail to misunderstand the point either, exploitation of info isn't something necessarily devious or negative imo, it's just something people do. icj is just one example, if it seems absurd in your opinion, well, have fun with that, could've been pretty much anything there. the fact that rivals exploit various kinds of information about the conduct of the opponent for their causes, like demonization, hate incitement, whatever, is really nothing new or surprising in any way.

 

but what the hell, let's go with it anyway: why does it seem funny to you exactly ? do you automatically expect such info to be exploited for military purposes ? why not expect of those organizations to turn to international bodies for their defense against u.s. military ?

[Alcofribas]

i have not missed the point, this is just another asinine political comment of yours.

 

you might want to just take 60 seconds to consider how the icj has proven itself to be a completely impotent entity wrt to Middle East issues. perhaps you're familiar with the various rulings against israeli policy (say, on the wall) which were just completely ignored by Israel/us. so for you to suggest that a more rational act would be to take the most infamous images of torture from the war on terror to such an organization which has demostrated a total lack of power to effect change is, obv, laughable.

 

of course your suggestion is equally silly considering the west uses the massive influence of the media as a propaganda/recruitment outlet for its war on terror. but of course the baddies should send some jpegs to the icj, otherwise they're dirty scum.

[th555]

Looks more like standard medical procedure than torture, though I haven't watched the whole thing because of the quite embarrassing acting of that guy. I do realize, however, that any standard medical procedure undergone in guantanamo bay is not necessarily a lot of fun.

I do think force feeding is the appropriate thing to do when confronted with hunger strikes, but that doesn't go for more traditional (and less harmful) forms of fasting IMO.

 

Note that I do not say I agree with whatever the Americans are up to these days.

[eugene]

i have not missed the point, this is just another asinine political comment of yours.

 

you might want to just take 60 seconds to consider how the icj has proven itself to be a completely impotent entity wrt to Middle East issues. perhaps you're familiar with the various rulings against israeli policy (say, on the wall) which were just completely ignored by Israel/us. so for you to suggest that a more rational act would be to take the most infamous images of torture from the war on terror to such an organization which has demostrated a total lack of power to effect change is, obv, laughable.

 

of course your suggestion is equally silly considering the west uses the massive influence of the media as a propaganda/recruitment outlet for its war on terror. but of course the baddies should send some jpegs to the icj, otherwise they're dirty scum.

first of all i rarely make any political comments at all, it's just something you and others can't seem to get in all those argument we have. the point is to inject some counter-arguments into the typical watmm circle jerk.

im definitely not suggesting it's more rational at all, im just saying that it's an option and that they choose another option (according to that talk), rational or not it's irrelevant for the point i tried to make. of course icj is utter bullshit, and so is u.n in general.

[eugene]

but if you think about it actually looks like those images and the whole guantanamo/abu gharib ordeal in general seems more effective into swaying the public against the war (or at least some of its practices) than a bunch of zealous teenagers with outdated soviet weapons.

[luke viia]

You know what would be even more effective? Decapitating all their babies and taking pictures of that. We should try that, it might be effective.

 

When we don't know if it's effective, but it might work, we go ahead and do it. Right eugene!?